The depressing thing is that half of America is going to lap this up.
Dunno. He looks and sounds like a dribbling loser.
This is no rallying cry.
Written down, the words probably weren't that different to what Trump has always said. But all the oomph has gone. And without the oomph, you can see how pathetic the words are.
And the oomph, the leader-confidence, was part Trump's appeal, part of why people voted for him. I don't totally buy @isam's theory that the bigger personality wins, but it's a factor. And it's gone.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
@kle4 posted a really interesting Tweet thread in the last discussion with someone debunking many of the voting fraud theories doing the rounds. Many of them were indeed debunked, though some of them were not.
One that wasn't satisfactorily debunked (in my opinion) was the story of a Philadelphia ballot dump that included no votes for Trump, but 23,000 odd for Biden. The 'debunk' was that a similar thing had happened to Romney in Philadelphia, and at the time, a media organisation had looked for *any* Romney supporters in that district, and found none. That doesn't convince me really, because whilst I understand there might be next to none, not finding any for a vox pop, is not the same as there not being any. It just isn't. In a sample size of 23,000, there is going to be at least one or two contrary fuckers voting for Trump (or Romney for that matter).
Another one, that isn't necessarily evidence of fraud per se, but is very interesting, is Twitter thread, then published on Zerohedge, noting the big divergence in key swing states between votes for Biden, and votes for the Democratic Senate candidates. For example, in Georgia, Biden got 95,000 more votes than the Dem candidate - Trump got 818 more than his candidate. Similar situation in Michigan. At the very least, it would be good to see these numbers for every State, and a good working hypothesis as to why this would be the case.
In every UK multiple election, the number of people who complete their ballot for the “more important” election always exceeds those for the lower tier elections, many papers for which are left blank.
I agree. However, I still think the phenomenon in this case is pronounced and singular enough to warrant further exploration - all the States. The original Tweeter hasn't done this, perhaps because all the States seen together weaken his argument, perhaps not.
There are huge questions surrounding postal voting - we've seen it all in Tower Hamlets etc., everyone who posts on PB knows this. I would agree that the time to be outraged about postal voting (combined with an aggressive - possibly bordering on dodgy GOTV operation) about it isn't when you find you're losing an election. However, that doesn't mean everything smells great in the garden.
@kle4 posted a really interesting Tweet thread in the last discussion with someone debunking many of the voting fraud theories doing the rounds. Many of them were indeed debunked, though some of them were not.
One that wasn't satisfactorily debunked (in my opinion) was the story of a Philadelphia ballot dump that included no votes for Trump, but 23,000 odd for Biden. The 'debunk' was that a similar thing had happened to Romney in Philadelphia, and at the time, a media organisation had looked for *any* Romney supporters in that district, and found none. That doesn't convince me really, because whilst I understand there might be next to none, not finding any for a vox pop, is not the same as there not being any. It just isn't. In a sample size of 23,000, there is going to be at least one or two contrary fuckers voting for Trump (or Romney for that matter).
Another one, that isn't necessarily evidence of fraud per se, but is very interesting, is Twitter thread, then published on Zerohedge, noting the big divergence in key swing states between votes for Biden, and votes for the Democratic Senate candidates. For example, in Georgia, Biden got 95,000 more votes than the Dem candidate - Trump got 818 more than his candidate. Similar situation in Michigan. At the very least, it would be good to see these numbers for every State, and a good working hypothesis as to why this would be the case.
In every UK multiple election, the number of people who complete their ballot for the “more important” election always exceeds those for the lower tier elections, many papers for which are left blank.
I agree. However, I still think the phenomenon in this case is pronounced and singular enough to warrant further exploration - all the States. The original Tweeter hasn't done this, perhaps because all the States seen together weaken his argument, perhaps not.
There are huge questions surrounding postal voting - we've seen it all in Tower Hamlets etc., everyone who posts on PB knows this. I would agree that the time to be outraged about postal voting (combined with an aggressive - possibly bordering on dodgy GOTV operation) about it isn't when you find you're losing an election. However, that doesn't mean everything smells great in the garden.
Such utter drivel. There are not "huge questions surrounding postal voting". That's just a lie.
@kle4 posted a really interesting Tweet thread in the last discussion with someone debunking many of the voting fraud theories doing the rounds. Many of them were indeed debunked, though some of them were not.
One that wasn't satisfactorily debunked (in my opinion) was the story of a Philadelphia ballot dump that included no votes for Trump, but 23,000 odd for Biden. The 'debunk' was that a similar thing had happened to Romney in Philadelphia, and at the time, a media organisation had looked for *any* Romney supporters in that district, and found none. That doesn't convince me really, because whilst I understand there might be next to none, not finding any for a vox pop, is not the same as there not being any. It just isn't. In a sample size of 23,000, there is going to be at least one or two contrary fuckers voting for Trump (or Romney for that matter).
Another one, that isn't necessarily evidence of fraud per se, but is very interesting, is Twitter thread, then published on Zerohedge, noting the big divergence in key swing states between votes for Biden, and votes for the Democratic Senate candidates. For example, in Georgia, Biden got 95,000 more votes than the Dem candidate - Trump got 818 more than his candidate. Similar situation in Michigan. At the very least, it would be good to see these numbers for every State, and a good working hypothesis as to why this would be the case.
In every UK multiple election, the number of people who complete their ballot for the “more important” election always exceeds those for the lower tier elections, many papers for which are left blank.
I agree. However, I still think the phenomenon in this case is pronounced and singular enough to warrant further exploration - all the States. The original Tweeter hasn't done this, perhaps because all the States seen together weaken his argument, perhaps not.
There are huge questions surrounding postal voting - we've seen it all in Tower Hamlets etc., everyone who posts on PB knows this. I would agree that the time to be outraged about postal voting (combined with an aggressive - possibly bordering on dodgy GOTV operation) about it isn't when you find you're losing an election. However, that doesn't mean everything smells great in the garden.
I gave him top much credit. Here was me thinking that behind the ideological nonsense he might be the sort to end it by conceding. He is on the ballot in his own right after all.
I see he challenged Biden to say he wants legal votes counted. No need for Biden to play that game, but given Trump probably has no idea what makes a vote legal or not I think he'll be disappointed by what will happen if only legal ones are indeed counted.
What's funny about that? It's really shite. There are a lot of ways to rubbish Trump (and he gives plenty of ammo) using words that still maintain a veneer of neutrality. 'is yet to present evidence of how' says much the same thing but a bit better.
I, too, prefer my news coverage to maintain such a veneer and so your suggestion might be better (though one might argue the 'yet' implies he has it, when he might not). However, it's not actually all that different so it's a pretty mild example when it comes to language since it's not in the least bit misleading or even pejorative. He hasn't got evidence and he is saying he's being cheated
The BBC's summary at the end was exactly the right way of handling it, in my view. "These things are not true." Direct but not crass, nor an ad hominem attack.
The depressing thing is that half of America is going to lap this up.
Dunno. He looks and sounds like a dribbling loser.
This is no rallying cry.
Written down, the words probably weren't that different to what Trump has always said. But all the oomph has gone. And without the oomph, you can see how pathetic the words are.
And the oomph, the leader-confidence, was part Trump's appeal, part of why people voted for him. I don't totally buy @isam's theory that the bigger personality wins, but it's a factor. And it's gone.
Sad.
I think he needs help. And I don't mean that in a flippant internet way. He looked very borderline.
Said it before and will say it again. Although I shouldn't offer a sidewalk diagnosis. The man has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's an untreatable condition deserving of sympathy. He really is textbook.
It is pretty painful to watch a nervous breakdown in public.
Indeed. The construct of his self-image has crumbled in 48 hours. He deserves sympathy. And the kind intervention of loving family and friends. If he has any.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
Obvious that what he said (and how) was so shocking that both Reps and Fox anchors don’t want to associate themselves with it. The best they can do is “let’s wait and see the evidence”
Said it before and will say it again. Although I shouldn't offer a sidewalk diagnosis. The man has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's an untreatable condition deserving of sympathy. He really is textbook.
It is pretty painful to watch a nervous breakdown in public.
Indeed. They construct of his self-image has crumbled in 48 hours. He deserves sympathy. And the kind intervention of loving family and friends. If he actually has any.
Sympathy does not need to be instant, I think it can wait. And like redemption and self realisation, it may not be something everyone achieves.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
Said it before and will say it again. Although I shouldn't offer a sidewalk diagnosis. The man has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's an untreatable condition deserving of sympathy. He really is textbook.
It is pretty painful to watch a nervous breakdown in public.
Indeed. They construct of his self-image has crumbled in 48 hours. He deserves sympathy. And the kind intervention of loving family and friends. If he actually has any.
Safety first. Keep him well away from the nuclear "football".
(1) That’s a big shout by Pence. He’s put himself fully squared with Trump. Legal Votes vs All Votes is becoming the Black Lives Matter / All Lives Matter clash of this election
(2) As I said, this is going to the courts big time.
(3) Also, notice the states he mentioned most often (and what he omitted) - Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. He didn’t really mention Wisconsin much even though he has a narrow margin.
So, the legal fight will be on those 3 streets.
(4) He looked absolutely knackered and went round in circles;
(5) If I was the tech sector or Wall Street, I’d be slightly nervous after that speech. There is a lot of damage he can do in the next few months if he decides to do so and some of it would be hard to reverse, especially if it was populist in nature
CNN asking when senior Republicans are going to step in.
If Georgia gets added to NV AZ & PA, its beyond a controversy and senior GOP types know it. Thats your critical point, too big a win for them to really muddy it. The party has to cleanse the Trump family takeover even if it retains the populist nationalist stance.
Ant step in to put Trump on his heels will be based on simple statements accepting the democratic process. He is still in charge for a few months so its not like here where failure necessarily leads to bloodletting 24 hours later. They might go for the jugular but its just as likely they will just lower Trump gradually into the water
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
What's funny about that? It's really shite. There are a lot of ways to rubbish Trump (and he gives plenty of ammo) using words that still maintain a veneer of neutrality. 'is yet to present evidence of how' says much the same thing but a bit better.
Agreed, CNN is now clearly the counterpoint to Fox for left liberals after that
Seems like a straight factual headline to me. Suggesting that they rephrase it to lend some artificial dignity to a deeply undignified rant is absurd. Neutrality is not pretending that blatant untruths aren’t untruths.
I think everyone hopes that when they lose they will be able to do so with dignity. It's one reason the winners are inclined to be gracious to the defeated, since it's what they'd want in that situation. But some just cannot manage it. That Trump was reduced to complaining about the polls right up was a bad sign for his dignity.
We have 4 years of proof on here that a lot of people can’t lose with dignity!
I wonder why @Luckyguy1983 has never called for investigations into postal votes in Tory areas, is it because he's actually a hyper-partisan hack?
Because I'm not aware of any allegations of postal voting fraud in those areas?
If there are allegations relating to Tory candidates, of course they should be investigated.
I'm not hyper partisan at all actually - I'm broadly 'right wing', pro-Britain, pro-Brexit, but if Corbyn, Sturgeon, Starmer, etc. say something I agree with or do something I admire, I say it.
The sad thing about all of this is on Tuesday night I could have gone to bed, slept for 9 hours, taken my daughter to school THEN checked the news I would have made considerably more money than I will do.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I wonder why @Luckyguy1983 has never called for investigations into postal votes in Tory areas, is it because he's actually a hyper-partisan hack?
Because I'm not aware of any allegations of postal voting fraud in those areas?
If there are allegations relating to Tory candidates, of course they should be investigated.
I'm not hyper partisan at all actually - I'm broadly 'right wing', pro-Britain, pro-Brexit, but if Corbyn, Sturgeon, Starmer, etc. say something I agree with or do something I admire, I say it.
No because you never bothered to look because it doesn't agree with your pathetic narrative. Boring, go away now please
What's funny about that? It's really shite. There are a lot of ways to rubbish Trump (and he gives plenty of ammo) using words that still maintain a veneer of neutrality. 'is yet to present evidence of how' says much the same thing but a bit better.
Agreed, CNN is now clearly the counterpoint to Fox for left liberals after that
Seems like a straight factual headline to me. Suggesting that they rephrase it to lend some artificial dignity to a deeply undignified rant is absurd. Neutrality is not pretending that blatant untruths aren’t untruths.
CNN is not a neutral station though, and does not pretend to be.
Said it before and will say it again. Although I shouldn't offer a sidewalk diagnosis. The man has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's an untreatable condition deserving of sympathy. He really is textbook.
It is pretty painful to watch a nervous breakdown in public.
Indeed. They construct of his self-image has crumbled in 48 hours. He deserves sympathy. And the kind intervention of loving family and friends. If he actually has any.
Ivanka Trump, I think.
The (older) sons are monsters. His wife hates him. His "friends" are in it for what they can get and laugh at him behind his back. His GOP "colleagues" including Pence have scuttled away.
I think there's genuine affection between him and his daughter (we'll skate over the somewhat creepy aspect of it). And she has to do it.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
The Slovenian President's tweet came in the aftermath of his "victory claim" a couple of days ago.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
The equivalent to the Covid rules would be to make it illegal to smoke, even if only in the presence of people who don’t mind people smoking round them
I think everyone hopes that when they lose they will be able to do so with dignity. It's one reason the winners are inclined to be gracious to the defeated, since it's what they'd want in that situation. But some just cannot manage it. That Trump was reduced to complaining about the polls right up was a bad sign for his dignity.
We have 4 years of proof on here that a lot of people can’t lose with dignity!
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Me too, but Spreadex saved my bacon by suspending their market. I think I may even make a modest profit on them.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
Something that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the last 4 years is that the picture Trump presents to the world, in all its chaos and confusion and ego, is the real him. The number of people who have worked for him and seemingly realised he is not some mad genius, or merely putting on a show, only after they started workign for him, is huge.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
I wonder why @Luckyguy1983 has never called for investigations into postal votes in Tory areas, is it because he's actually a hyper-partisan hack?
Because I'm not aware of any allegations of postal voting fraud in those areas?
If there are allegations relating to Tory candidates, of course they should be investigated.
I'm not hyper partisan at all actually - I'm broadly 'right wing', pro-Britain, pro-Brexit, but if Corbyn, Sturgeon, Starmer, etc. say something I agree with or do something I admire, I say it.
No because you never bothered to look because it doesn't agree with your pathetic narrative. Boring, go away now please
I think it was you that tagged me in? But ok, rock on.
I think everyone hopes that when they lose they will be able to do so with dignity. It's one reason the winners are inclined to be gracious to the defeated, since it's what they'd want in that situation. But some just cannot manage it. That Trump was reduced to complaining about the polls right up was a bad sign for his dignity.
We have 4 years of proof on here that a lot of people can’t lose with dignity!
The Donald is holding a mirror to Remoaners
Not sure the Leavers won with much dignity either, to be honest.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
James Murdoch (who I used to know a bit) has stepped down from the Fox Board of Directors.
(5) If I was the tech sector or Wall Street, I’d be slightly nervous after that speech. There is a lot of damage he can do in the next few months if he decides to do so and some of it would be hard to reverse, especially if it was populist in nature
(2) As I said, this is going to the courts big time.
With the cases we've seen already that have been dismissed we've seen some failures because Trump hasn't had any evidence to present. Although I've been among those worried that he'd use the courts to steal a win, he needs something a bit more than, "throw out 100k of Biden's vote so that I can win."
In Texas they had a route to that with the drive-throughs, but I don't see that they have anything like that in PA or MI.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Me too, but Spreadex saved my bacon by suspending their market. I think I may even make a modest profit on them.
If we’d all just bet with no analysis beyond what Monday’s papers said and gone to bed at 10pm we’d be richer for it.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
They haven't won the Senate yet. But then that's even more reason to ditch him ASAP.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
CNN have lost it during Trump presidency. Not just the inability for any balance, I understand calling out deliberate lies, but they literally lost the ability to report on anything but Trump tweeting some crap. If you just watch CNN most days you would have no idea anything else is going on in the world. And their hatred and bias has been caught out on a number of times, when they have jumped to report things that turned out not to be true. They just presume x must be correct, but Trump said something different.
They aren't as bad as Fox News, but at times it isn't far off. Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo aren't far off Hannity and Carlson, in terms of partisan and inaccuracy.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Wasn’t it one of the Eastern European leaders who tweeted to congratulate Trump? Bet their Twitter team has been sacked...
It did look as if it was going Trump's way for a while. There was plenty of backslapping amongst the Trafalgar fan club on here during the early hours of Wednesday morning.
Oh absolutely, and I ruined some of my betting positions based on seeing results (despite, as many have said, being extensively briefed on the “red mirage”), but leaders of countries have an easy way out of saying anything until there’s a result.
Me too, but Spreadex saved my bacon by suspending their market. I think I may even make a modest profit on them.
I lost on Florida cashed out on Biden just in time i thought but have won big in last few days on States (barring some shocking late turnaround)
Over 75m Biden and over 70m Trump too based on the EV Blog were highpoints
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
Yes, we are supposed to lock ourselves indoors to protect the NHS, and made to feel guilty about possibly using NHS services that mean others miss out if we go out; why not do the same for smokers, or drinkers, or any other people who do things that might end them up in hospital? We are doing it now for Covid, the precedent is set
What's funny about that? It's really shite. There are a lot of ways to rubbish Trump (and he gives plenty of ammo) using words that still maintain a veneer of neutrality. 'is yet to present evidence of how' says much the same thing but a bit better.
Agreed, CNN is now clearly the counterpoint to Fox for left liberals after that
Seems like a straight factual headline to me. Suggesting that they rephrase it to lend some artificial dignity to a deeply undignified rant is absurd. Neutrality is not pretending that blatant untruths aren’t untruths.
CNN is not a neutral station though, and does not pretend to be.
I didn’t say it was. But criticising a straight headline, whoever published it, is just silly.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
CNN have lost it during Trump presidency. Not just the inability for any balance, but I understand calling out deliberate lies, but they literally lost the ability to report on anything but Trump tweeting some crap. If you just watch CNN most days you would have no idea anything else is going on in the world.
Do you think in general though it's right for say the BBC to say what Trump said is untrue, or that they should try and be "impartial" and balance? I think there's truth and there's lies, the objective thing is to call out the lies.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
I'm in two minds. I do take the point about false balance, but very personally attacking and emotive reporting is not necessary. Where false statements are made even an outlet seeking to be detached and neutral can say they are false, or at least there is no evidence to support this etc. Most stations in america are't attempting neutrality and the right have their own choice if they want Trump support, so it is hardly unfair for other stations to be anti him, even if they outnumber the pro Trump.
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
Not yet. As I mentioned, they mostly believe in the fraud line. They just don’t want to say it publicly.
The key will be how much they want to fight. Which is why I keep - very boringly - go back again to saying Arizona is key. Trump gets that, he’s at 242. It’s clear Georgia will be very tight. After that, they will focus on flipping the PA or MI result.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
And is there actually any obligation on CNN to be "fair"? Are they publicly funded? Beyond their commercial reputation if that depends on it. How can you complain about CNN but be fine about Fox?
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I dunno. Ask my wife after I’ve been on the whisky or spent the day at the beer festival....
Prohibitionists and folk who frankly could best be described as neo-prohibitionists have put forward various arguments for banning or seriously restricting booze based on secondary effects - makes us all poorer due to lower economic productivity of not-entirely-sober workers; risk of being killed by a drink-driver; known association between drinking and various categories of violent crime (from pub brawls to domestic violence).
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
He is properly mentally unwell.
He isn't mentally unwell, he is a deeply corrupt human being who is in this to enrich himself and he now fears ruin. In US terms I'm probably a republican or, at a pinch, a blue dog Democrat but my personal dislike towards Trump, christ, well this forum has had 5 years of me ranting on about how dodge the guy is.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
Yes, we are supposed to lock ourselves indoors to protect the NHS, and made to feel guilty about possibly using NHS services that mean others miss out if we go out; why not do the same for smokers, or drinkers, or any other people who do things that might end them up in hospital? We are doing it now for Covid, the precedent is set
I doubt it will be extended too much further, but bears watching. The first flu season post Covid(if there is such a thing) will be an interesting one in terms of mask wearing urging.
Comments
Fulton still to come
Actually I think Biden might be almost 2k down after Fulton
Wins by 4k to 5k with other Counties
And the oomph, the leader-confidence, was part Trump's appeal, part of why people voted for him. I don't totally buy @isam's theory that the bigger personality wins, but it's a factor. And it's gone.
Sad.
There are huge questions surrounding postal voting - we've seen it all in Tower Hamlets etc., everyone who posts on PB knows this. I would agree that the time to be outraged about postal voting (combined with an aggressive - possibly bordering on dodgy GOTV operation) about it isn't when you find you're losing an election. However, that doesn't mean everything smells great in the garden.
“no idea what evidence he could possibly present about all this”
- ABC News
"Yapping"
He deserves sympathy.
And the kind intervention of loving family and friends.
If he has any.
Time for the men in grey suits.
(1) That’s a big shout by Pence. He’s put himself fully squared with Trump. Legal Votes vs All Votes is becoming the Black Lives Matter / All Lives Matter clash of this election
(2) As I said, this is going to the courts big time.
(3) Also, notice the states he mentioned most often (and what he omitted) - Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. He didn’t really mention Wisconsin much even though he has a narrow margin.
So, the legal fight will be on those 3 streets.
(4) He looked absolutely knackered and went round in circles;
(5) If I was the tech sector or Wall Street, I’d be slightly nervous after that speech. There is a lot of damage he can do in the next few months if he decides to do so and some of it would be hard to reverse, especially if it was populist in nature
Ant step in to put Trump on his heels will be based on simple statements accepting the democratic process. He is still in charge for a few months so its not like here where failure necessarily leads to bloodletting 24 hours later. They might go for the jugular but its just as likely they will just lower Trump gradually into the water
It's all over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVOUlNCJK2Y
Suggesting that they rephrase it to lend some artificial dignity to a deeply undignified rant is absurd.
Neutrality is not pretending that blatant untruths aren’t untruths.
The Donald is holding a mirror to Remoaners
If there are allegations relating to Tory candidates, of course they should be investigated.
I'm not hyper partisan at all actually - I'm broadly 'right wing', pro-Britain, pro-Brexit, but if Corbyn, Sturgeon, Starmer, etc. say something I agree with or do something I admire, I say it.
The (older) sons are monsters. His wife hates him. His "friends" are in it for what they can get and laugh at him behind his back. His GOP "colleagues" including Pence have scuttled away.
I think there's genuine affection between him and his daughter (we'll skate over the somewhat creepy aspect of it). And she has to do it.
He is properly mentally unwell.
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
(5) If I was the tech sector or Wall Street, I’d be slightly nervous after that speech. There is a lot of damage he can do in the next few months if he decides to do so and some of it would be hard to reverse, especially if it was populist in nature
Nasdaq jumped 8% since it became clear he'd lost.
In Texas they had a route to that with the drive-throughs, but I don't see that they have anything like that in PA or MI.
If even Rick Santorum is unwilling to defend you, then it is all over
They aren't as bad as Fox News, but at times it isn't far off. Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo aren't far off Hannity and Carlson, in terms of partisan and inaccuracy.
I'm also getting a Hitler's last political testament vibe.
Over 75m Biden and over 70m Trump too based on the EV Blog were highpoints
The key will be how much they want to fight. Which is why I keep - very boringly - go back again to saying Arizona is key. Trump gets that, he’s at 242. It’s clear Georgia will be very tight. After that, they will focus on flipping the PA or MI result.
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.